Regional Travel Study

PSRC S Regional Travel Study 1999 KEY COMPARISONS OF 1999,, AND TRAVEL SURVEY FINDINGS Puget Sound Regional Council JUNE 2015

PSRC S Regional Travel Study / JUNE 2015 Funding for this document provided in part by member jurisdictions, grants from U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Federal Highway Administration and Washington State Department of Transportation. PSRC fully complies with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and related statutes and regulations in all programs and activities. For more information, or to obtain a Title VI Complaint Form, see http://www.psrc.org/about/public/titlevi or call 206-587-4819. American with Disabilities Act (ADA) Information: Individuals requiring reasonable accommodations may request written materials in alternate formats, sign language interpreters, physical accessibility accommodations, or other reasonable accommodations by contacting the ADA Coordinator, Thu Le at 206-464-6175, with two weeks advance notice. Persons who are deaf or hard of hearing may contact the ADA Coordinator, Thu Le through TTY Relay 711. Additional copies of this document may be obtained by contacting: Puget Sound Regional Council Information Center 1011 Western Avenue, Suite 500 Seattle, Washington 98104-1035 206-464-7532 fax 206-587-4825 info@psrc.org psrc.org

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Puget Sound Regional Council conducts household travel surveys every 7 to 8 years to understand residents demographic characteristics and travel behaviors. This report compares results from the most recent survey to findings from and 1999 surveys. In the 15 years since the 1999 survey, the region has changed in notable ways, but has remained very much the same in most others. The regionwide changes are slight, even among fluctuating economic health and behavioral shifts in specific areas. Household characteristics, for instance, have changed very little since 1999, but are trending toward more households without young children. The population is aging, as the share of older groups (65+) has increased and the proportion of younger children (5 to 15) has declined. Travel mode changes show an increase in the share of transit and nonmotorized trips, while the share of driving trips has declined. However, the rate of that change has been gradual 86% of trips were in personal vehicles in 1999, declining to 85% in, and 82% by. While the regional mode changes have been slight, much larger shifts from driving were observed in urban cores of Seattle and to a lesser degree in some areas of Bellevue, Everett, and Redmond. Between and, shifting from automobiles was most pronounced for 18-24 year olds, closely followed by 25-35 year olds; mode shift was uniform for other age groups. Average commute times and distances have fluctuated only slightly, with average drive-alone distance increasing by a mile (to 12.2 miles in ) while average commute time wavered around 28 and 29 minutes between 1999 and. Trips are taken at a similar rate as in for a given purpose, and have similar average lengths. Finally, a brief analysis of stated-preference responses suggests that increased fuel prices, and more competitive, high-speed transit options would have the greatest impact on decisions to use an alternative mode to get to work. These questions also revealed that employees are much more likely to be offered subsidized parking options at work than receive a paid transit pass. Only a small portion of the stated preference responses were analyzed in this report, but these kinds of responses help us to understand Puget Sound residents attitudes beyond their observed behavior. Altogether, the survey has provided exciting new data that paints an informative view of the region, especially in context of changes over time. 1

CONTENTS Introduction...3 Demographics...4 Household Size...4 Household Composition...5 Resident Age...6 Vehicles per Household...7 Mode Share...8 Commute Trips... 11 Trip Characteristics... 13 Trip Purpose... 13 Trip Distance... 13 Trips by Time of Day... 15 Stated Preference... 16 Alternative Transportation... 16 Employer Benefits... 17 Conclusion... 19 2

INTRODUCTION PSRC s household travel survey provides a wealth of information about our region s travel behaviors and preferences. Thanks to the thousands of respondents who reported their transportation experiences, we are better able to understand how people move around the region and interact with the transportation system in great detail. The survey responses are useful for many different purposes, such as building and updating travel forecasting models, but they also provide important context for evaluating changes in travel patterns over time or among different groups of people. This report provides key comparisons between the survey and past surveys from and earlier. Before, the latest travel survey conducted by PSRC was in, and many have wondered how economic and demographic changes since then have affected travel patterns. For instance, average vehicle miles traveled (VMT) per capita in the U.S. began decreasing around the time of the survey, and an economic recession spurred other changes. This report focuses on answering some of the questions about how the Puget Sound region looks today, and how it s changed. Trip characteristics are the focus here which travel modes people chose, how long their trips are, and how commute behaviors have changed. The survey data contains much more data that will be continuously mined by PSRC, and is available now for public use as well. To read more about the survey and download the data directly, visit the PSRC website at www.psrc.org. 3

DEMOGRAPHICS Household survey data is used mostly to understand travel behavior, but it s also helpful to evaluate demographic changes over time. Though Census data is often more detailed and is used more frequently to monitor population and household characteristics, the regional survey data is another source to compare and validate against. The following sections present a few key summaries of demographic changes gleaned from the latest PSRC surveys dating back to 1999. All regional estimates represent the four-county central Puget Sound region. HOUSEHOLD SIZE Since 1999, household size distribution has not changed drastically across the region, as detailed in Table 1 and shown graphically in Figure 1. Single household shares have increased since 1999, but as of are somewhat lower than in. Larger households with four or more members have declined consistently, but only slightly since 1999, from about 23% of all regional households in 1999 to about 21.5% in. Table 1. Households in Region by Size, 1999 to 1999 1999 1 Person 337,872 402,142 422,517 27.2% 29.2% 28.9% 2 Persons 424,845 473,752 492,846 34.2% 34.4% 33.7% 3 Persons 196,702 197,325 231,468 15.8% 14.3% 15.8% 4+ Persons 283,898 302,483 315,276 22.8% 22.0% 21.6% Total 1,243,317 1,375,702 1,462,107 100% 100% 100% Weighted Average 2.34 2.29 2.30 40.0% 35.0% 30.0% 25.0% 20.0% 15.0% 10.0% 5.0% 0.0% 1 Person 2 Persons 3 Persons 4+ Persons 1999 Figure 1. Households Size Distribution, 1999 to 4

HOUSEHOLD COMPOSITION A more nuanced view of household composition includes more than total members. Households can be separated into cohorts that typically have distinct behaviors. Categories include households with young children (under 5), school-age children (5-17), and various age groups for adult households with no children. The age ranges are young adult (under 35), mid-adult (35-64), and older adult (65 and older), and these are further segmented by single households and those with two or more members. Table 2 compares the number of households and shares by these groups from 1999 to. Figure 2 visually shows that some of these cohorts have experienced declining shares over this time, though the distribution has remained much the same overall. The most notable change is a decrease of households with young children, from about 15% of all households in 1999 to a little over 12% in. Meanwhile, the share of mid-adult households with 2 or more members (and no children) has increased slightly since 1999, a little less than 1.5% increase. Table 2. Households by Type, 1999 to 1999 1999 Young Children 187,977 185,804 181,780 15.1% 13.5% 12.4% School Children 240,806 262,044 280,839 19.4% 19.0% 19.2% Young Adult 72,857 83,657 87,477 5.9% 6.1% 6.0% Mid-Age Adult 172,199 217,063 218,893 13.8% 15.8% 15.0% Older Adult 92,899 101,422 116,147 7.5% 7.4% 7.9% Young 2+ Adult 97,659 100,247 123,201 7.9% 7.3% 8.4% Mid 2+ Adult 256,755 289,604 321,218 20.7% 21.1% 22.0% Older 2+ Adult 122,164 135,861 132,552 9.8% 9.9% 9.1% Total 1,243,316 1,375,702 1,462,107 100% 100% 100% 25.0% 20.0% 15.0% 10.0% 5.0% 1999 0.0% Young Children School Children Young Adult Mid-Age Adult Older Adult Young 2+ Adult Mid 2+ Adult Older 2+ Adult Figure 2. Household Type Distribution, 1999 to 5

RESIDENT AGE Change in age distribution reflects the change of household types in more detail. Since 1999, the share of children 5 to 15 has consistently declined from 16.2% to 14.4% of regional population (though the total number of these children has increased slightly due to overall population growth). Meanwhile, the population is aging, as a growing percentage of people are older than 65 (10% of people in 1999 vs 11.4% in ). Other age groups shares have fluctuated in the past 15 years, with no sustained trend in decline or growth among specific age groups. Even with population growth around 18% between 1999 and, the regional growth has been mostly homogenous by age group. Table 3. Age Distribution in the Puget Sound Region, 1999 to 1999 1999 Under 5 204,145 211,656 228,898 6.8% 6.5% 6.5% 5 to 15 486,370 486,005 510,929 16.2% 14.9% 14.4% 16 to 17 84,911 98,792 83,635 2.8% 3.0% 2.4% 18 to 24 175,332 172,806 205,643 5.8% 5.3% 5.8% 25 to 34 455,055 461,658 554,791 15.1% 14.1% 15.7% 35 to 44 520,704 479,702 518,854 17.3% 14.7% 14.7% 45 to 54 487,829 558,360 535,812 16.2% 17.1% 15.2% 55 to 64 288,931 453,256 493,494 9.6% 13.9% 14.0% 65 or older 302,188 344,807 404,047 10.1% 10.6% 11.4% Total 3,005,465 3,267,042 3,536,105 100% 100% 100% 20.0% 18.0% 16.0% 14.0% 12.0% 10.0% 8.0% 6.0% 4.0% 2.0% 0.0% Under 5 5 to 15 16 to 17 18 to 24 25 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 or older 1999 Figure 3. Age Distribution in the Puget Sound Region, 1999 to 6

VEHICLES PER HOUSEHOLD The distribution of households by number of vehicles owned has not changed much since 1999. There are no continuous trends toward growth or decline in households by vehicle type. There has been a small increase in households with three or more vehicles since 1999, but the share inched down in versus an increase between 1999 and. Table 4. Households by Number of Vehicles Owned, 1999 to 1999 1999 0 95,384 101,762 107,348 7.7% 7.4% 7.3% 1 415,146 443,633 476,629 33.4% 32.2% 32.6% 2 486,577 514,071 553,666 39.1% 37.4% 37.9% 3+ 246,208 316,236 324,464 19.8% 23.0% 22.2% Total 1,243,315 1,375,702 1,462,107 100% 100% 100% Weighted Average 1.71 1.76 1.75 45.0% 40.0% 35.0% 30.0% 25.0% 20.0% 15.0% 10.0% 5.0% 0.0% 0 1 2 3+ 1999 Figure 4. Distribution of Household by Vehicle Ownership, 1999 to 7

MODE SHARE Throughout the past few decades, most people in the Puget Sound region have used personal vehicles to get around. In 1999, 86% of all trips were in personal cars, trucks, or SUVs. By, that share fell to about a little less than 85%, continuing downward to just under 82% by. Table 5. Regional Mode Shares, 1999 to 1999 Auto 86.0% 84.8% 81.5% Walk 1 6.1% 7.7% 11.0% Transit 2.6% 3.2% 4.2% Bike 0.9% 1.0% 1.3% Other 4.4% 3.3% 2.0% 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Auto Walk Transit Bike Other 1999 Figure 5. Regional Mode Shares, 1999 to Even though auto travel is still integral to the region s transportation system, survey results suggest significant shifts are taking place, especially toward transit and walking. Transit shares increased by over 60% between 1999 and. The percent of trips made by walking increased 25% between 1999 and and increased by over 40% between and. However, there are some differences in the survey methods that likely exaggerate the changes in walking shares between and previous surveys, so changes might not be quite as dramatic as suggested by the results in Figure 5, though the general trend in increased walking shares is still evident. 1 Regional bicycle shares have also increased slightly since 1999, from 0.9% to 1.3% in. 1 The survey was offered in a web-based format for the first time ever, whereas previous surveys were conducted over the phone. In the survey, users were prompted to record all trips, even short walking trips that might otherwise have been ignored or excluded. The survey instrument also included interactive mapping and travel diary features that might have spurred respondents to remember and record additional walk trips or walk components of other trips. The inconsistencies between these two survey methods should be noted when comparing walk share changes. 8

SOV HOV Transit Mode shares have been shifting over time, but where in the region are the changes occurring? Evaluating mode shares at specific geographies allows us to see which locations are experiencing the most dramatic shifts between travel modes. PSRC s designated Regional Growth Centers are convenient areas to compare, since many of these locations contain a large number of jobs and/or residents, and thus received a higher sample density (which allows us to make statistically valid analyses). However, only the largest and currently developed centers contained enough samples for mode share comparisons, so only these are included for comparison in Table 6 below. Also note that bicycle trips have been included with other modes since there were too few samples for most of these centers to report accurately in detail. Bellevue Table 6. Mode Shares to Regional Growth Centers, to, All Trips Everett Redmond Downtown Redmond- Overlake Seattle Downtown Seattle First Hill/ Capitol Hill Seattle Northgate Seattle South Lake Union Seattle University Community Tacoma Downtown 52% 48% 53% 60% 26% 33% 48% 54% 31% 50% 44% 50% 42% 42% 44% 16% 23% 56% 28% 22% 46% 42% 33% 33% 43% 29% 19% 23% 31% 22% 26% 28% 40% 20% 28% 42% 25% 14% 14% 29% 12% 16% 25% 39% 7% 6% 1% 5% 27% 16% 4% 9% 18% 9% 4% 10% 8% 3% 10% 27% 17% 6% 14% 21% 7% 4% Walk 2 8% 6% 3% 4% 27% 25% 17% 11% 19% 10% 7% 18% 20% 10% 8% 38% 41% 5% 37% 31% 18% 11% Other 1% 7% 0% 3% 1% 4% 0% 5% 5% 3% 4% 3% 2% 3% 13% 3% 5% 3% 9% 10% 5% 3% Region Nearly all of these centers have seen substantial shifts from personal vehicles to transit, walking, and other modes (which includes bicycling). The largest drops in SOV and HOV shares occurred in Seattle s South Lake Union, Capitol Hill/First Hill, Downtown, and in Redmond s Overlake and Downtown neighborhoods. These results indicate personal vehicle shares to South Lake Union were cut in half between and, while transit share increased by 50% and walking shares more than tripled. This change seems to reflect the boom of office, retail, and living accommodations in the area within the past decade. The most significant decreases in auto use between and were among younger travelers. As seen in Figure 6, ages 18-24 saw the largest drop from over 85% auto in to a little more than 70% auto in, for all trip purposes. Those aged 25-34 saw auto modes decrease to just over 70% in the same time as well. The trend is less pronounced for other age groups, but no age group experienced increases in auto shares between and. The mode share changes for those 35 and older trend toward reduced SOV shares, but the changes may be explained by a 2 See discussion in footnote 1, page 8, on comparing walk share estimates between and surveys. 9

greater number of surveyed walk trips rather than a significant reduction in driving for these age groups. Figure 6: Regional Auto Mode Share by Age (All Trips), to 100.0% 90.0% 80.0% 70.0% 60.0% 50.0% 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0% 18-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75-84 10

COMMUTE TRIPS Mode choice trends for commuting reflect overall trends for all trip purposes. Since, driving and riding in passenger vehicles to work has decreased, while transit and walk shares have increased. The trend is strongest in King County where SOV shares decreased from about 74% to 65%, and transit use increased from 11% to 19%. However, even though regional trends suggest driving shares decreased while transit shares increased, there are exceptions in some counties. Snohomish County, for instance, showed a slight increase in SOV shares, while Pierce County s transit share declined slightly. Table 7: Mode Split for Commute Trips, vs PSRC Travel Surveys King County Kitsap County Pierce County Snohomish County Region SOV 73.6% 64.5% 83.3% 74.3% 88.1% 85.0% 84.3% 85.0% 77.6% 71.0% HOV 10.3% 8.1% 9.5% 14.0% 9.0% 9.0% 9.9% 7.1% 9.1% 8.3% Bike 2.2% 3.7% 3.9% 2.0% 0.1% 2.5% 0.6% 1.1% 1.8% 3.0% Walk 3 3.1% 3.9% 0.9% 3.2% 1.1% 1.9% 2.6% 1.8% 2.6% 3.2% Transit 10.8% 18.6% 2.5% 4.1% 1.7% 1.2% 2.6% 3.1% 7.9% 13.2% Other 0.0% 1.2% 1.2% 2.5% 0.0% 0.4% 0.0% 2.0% 1.0% 1.2% While slightly fewer people have been driving to work in most places around the region, those that are driving to work are facing increasingly longer commutes, as seen in Figure 7. The regional average commute distance was 11.3 miles for SOV trips in 1999, increasing to about a mile longer on average by. Meanwhile, the average distance has fluctuated for HOV trips, with s average distances less than half a mile longer than in 1999, yet about half a mile less than in. Transit trips have seen a consistent decrease in average commute distances from 1999. Average walk commute distances dropped by more than half a mile on average between and, likely due to variations in walk distance estimation processes between surveys. The walk distances are likely to be much more accurate, and are based on detailed GPS coordinates rather than more aggregate zone-based estimates used in previous surveys. 4 3 See discussion in footnote 1, page 8, on comparing walk share estimates between and surveys. 4 Since the survey was web-based, respondents were able to use a Google Maps application to directly pinpoint their origins and destination, or to confirm an address or saved location. This detail allowed a direct route estimate using Google Maps walk trip routing feature. In previous surveys, walk trip distances were often estimated with much more aggregate information, and used time and distance information garnered at the level of the traffic analysis zone (TAZ). 11

Average Commute Distance (miles) 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 14.0 13.9 13.6 11.3 11.8 12.2 10.9 11.7 11.3 1.4 1.5 0.8 SOV HOV Transit Walk 1999 Figure 7: Average Commute to Work Distance in Miles for Puget Sound region, 1999 to Survey Results A complementary comparison to commute distance is commute time. Figure 8 compares the average commute times by mode from 1999 to for the four modes as above. Results are somewhat consistent with trends in distance, but don t always show a clear trend in increasing or decreasing average commute times by mode. Trip travel times are user-reported estimates, based on when survey respondents indicated their trips started and began, usually at 5-minute increments. 70 Average Commute Time (minutes) 60 50 40 30 20 10 32.7 28.9 29.9 28.1 30.4 27.5 57.7 56.8 55.8 17.1 17.6 17.8 1999 0 SOV HOV Transit Walk Figure 8: Average Commute Time by Mode, 1999 to 12

TRIP CHARACTERISTICS Though mode shifting has occurred in some locations in the region, typical trip characteristics are much the same between and. TRIP PURPOSE Table 8 reports the average trips taken per person per day by purpose. These numbers indicate the relative likelihood of a person taking a trip for a given purpose on a typical travel day. Overall, most trip rates for purposes such as going to work, making social visits, attending to personal business, eating a meal, and going to school are nearly identical between and. Shopping trip rates are slightly higher and escort trips lower in, possibly due to categorical differences between the two surveys (i.e., some shopping trips were included in personal business or another purpose in ). Total trips per person per day are also slightly higher in, but this is actually an expected result based on a new survey design that captured many more short (typically walk) trips than in past surveys. The average daily trips per person estimates from are likely much more accurate than those gathered in. In 2009, the National Household Travel Survey (nhts.ornl.gov) recorded 3.79 average daily person trips nationwide, much closer to results gathered in the survey. Table 8: Average Trips/Person/Day by Purpose Trip Purpose Work 0.49 0.48 Social 0.11 0.11 Personal Business (e.g., visit Post Office to mail package) 0.29 0.28 Meal 0.17 0.18 School 0.21 0.19 Shopping 0.31 0.44 Escort (e.g., drop children off at daycare) 0.37 0.28 Total Trips per Person per Day 3.47 3.75 TRIP DISTANCE Since 1999, average trip distances have remained quite similar for SOV and transit trips across the region, with a small trend toward decreased transit trip length. Walk trips, however, are considerably shorter in the survey, for the same reasons introduced in in the discussion on commute trip lengths. Table 9. Average Trip Distance (miles) by Mode (All Trips), 1999 to 1999 SOV 7.7 7.8 7.6 Transit 11.9 11.1 11.0 Walk 1.1 1.3 0.5 13

The impact of more surveyed walk trips is clearly seen in trip length distribution comparison between and. Figure 11 shows that in past surveys like, most reported trips were between 1 and 2 miles long, but in the data, the most reported trips were between 0 and 1 mile long. This is a significant difference between the two surveys, and helps explains the difference between reported walk distances from Table 9. 25% % Trip Lengths within Bin Range 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% Trip Distance Range (miles) Figure 9. Trip Length Distribution, to Average travel distances for commute trips changed most significantly for SOV trips, increasing from 10.1 in 1999 to 11.8 by. Transit trip distances, meanwhile, decreased steadily from 14.0 in 1999 to 13.6 in. HOV trips fluctuated higher in than in 1999, but decreased again in. Table 10. Average Commute Trip Distance (miles) by Mode, 1999 to 1999 SOV 10.1 11.3 11.8 HOV 10.9 11.7 11.3 Transit 14.0 13.9 13.6 14

TRIPS BY TIME OF DAY Trip distribution by time of day hasn t changed dramatically between and, though there appears to be minor shifts from the morning peak (6 a.m. 10 a.m.) to mid-day (10 a.m. 2 p.m.), as well as some shifts from the afternoon (2 p.m. 6 p.m.) to evening peak (6 p.m. 8 p.m.). Figure 12 shows the percent of trips taken during each time period. 40.0% 35.0% 30.0% 25.0% 20.0% 15.0% 10.0% 5.0% 0.0% AM (6am-10am) Mid-Day (10am-2pm) PM (2pm-6pm) Evening (6pm-8pm) Off-Peak (8pm-5am) Figure 12. Aggregated Trip Time Distribution (All Trips), to 15

STATED PREFERENCE In addition to observed travel behaviors, survey respondents also answered many statedpreference questions. These are mostly hypothetical questions designed to help understand attitudes towards different policies or topics, or questions about general behavior and interaction with the transportation system. While there are many of these responses that can be analyzed in hundreds of ways, this summary report will present some of the most interesting preliminary findings. ALTERNATIVE TRANSPORTATION Survey respondents were asked which hypothetical scenarios might cause them to commute by carpool, vanpool, or transit an extra day per week (more than they already do). Table 12 separates these responses by county (from each person surveyed, expanded to represent the entire county). Table 11. Percent Responding "Yes, changes in this parameter would increase carpool, vanpool, or transit usage. Work Location County Commute by carpool, vanpool or transit more if: King Kitsap Pierce Snohomish The price of gas increased to $5 or more per gallon 17.4% 17.8% 22.3% 21.0% The price of parking increased by 50% (over what I pay now) 9.2% 3.0% 5.2% 6.3% Tolls on my route cost $5 or more per trip 10.8% 6.8% 8.6% 9.9% HOV lanes saved me 10 minutes per trip (over driving alone) 10.0% 2.8% 6.1% 9.9% High-speed transit saved 10 min. per trip (over driving alone) 22.1% 8.5% 9.6% 19.5% Something else 8.3% 6.6% 9.6% 10.8% None of these scenarios would change my behavior 40.4% 59.0% 60.0% 46.8% I already regularly carpool, vanpool, and/or take transit 19.5% 10.8% 4.3% 8.9% There is significant variation by geography for many of the scenarios. Increased fuel costs, however, are rather uniform across the region, with around 20% or fewer respondents claiming that $5/gallon gasoline would spur more HOV and transit use. King County residents were more responsive to parking cost increases over current levels, likely because they re already facing relatively higher costs to park in some locations. A 50% increase in most other locations is likely inconsequential because parking costs are already quite low. About a fifth of King and Snohomish residents claimed they might use transit more if it saved 10 minutes per trip, which is twice as high a response rate as in Pierce and Kitsap counties. It s also interesting to note that all respondents were about twice as responsive to increased gas (at $5.00/gallon) as they were to toll costs increasing by $5 per trip. However, the cost of the toll scenario would be about double the cost to a typical commuter if they paid a toll on all of their commute trips. This result highlights how powerful gas prices are to consumers, and perhaps how few are familiar enough with toll costs to be able to reconcile and compare the two costs easily. 16

EMPLOYER BENEFITS One of the many factors influencing commute mode are transportation benefits from employers. Respondents were asked if their employer provided partial or full reimbursement for parking costs at the workplace. Responses were sorted based on the employer s county location, as shown in Figure 14. 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 48.6% 58.7% 57.7% 56% 8.4% 9.7% 4.2% 5% 36.2% 24.0% 30.8% 34% King Kitsap Pierce Snohomish I don't know Offered and I use Offered, but I don't use Not Offered Figure 14. Subsidized Parking Pass for Workers by Workplace Location These results show that between half to nearly 60% of employees across the region are offered subsidized parking benefits (or work at locations with free-to-park lots) and do use them. Only a small fraction of those who are offered parking benefits turn them down. Only about 15% of workers in King and Kitsap workers do not use their parking benefits, and about half that number decline their benefits in Pierce and Snohomish counties. Fewer King and Snohomish County workers (about a third) are not offered subsidized parking, but the vast majority of workers in the region are not only offered reduced parking costs, but many of those do accept those benefits. On the flip side to parking benefits, some employers do provide subsidized transit passes. As above, Figure 15 breaks out full or partial transit pass benefits paid for by employers in each county. This finding shows that while employers are offering parking very frequently across the region, only a small number of employees are receiving any transit benefits. 17

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 18.9% 13.1% 12.4% 16.4% 7.4% 11.9% 10.6% 15.4% I don't know 50% Offered and I use 40% Offered, but I don't use 30% 20% 53.3% 60.7% 68.0% 58.9% Not Offered 10% 0% King Kitsap Pierce Snohomish Figure 15. Subsidized Transit Pass for Workers by Workplace Location Of those who are offered transit benefits, only about half actually use the benefit. Transit subsidies are offered and used most often in King County, but only about 35% of workers there are eligible for the benefit (and just over half use it). In Pierce County, only 18% of workers are offered transit benefits. As policies seek to reduce the driving commute share, this result is an important reminder that employer policies are a key driver behind commute behaviors and potential lever for change. 18

CONCLUSION PSRC s Regional Travel Survey contains a great deal of information, only a small part of which has been summarized and discussed here. This report featured some of the most important and striking aspects of the survey results uncovered thus far and analysis will be an ongoing process. By comparing results to past surveys, some trends were uncovered about slight shifts in demographics and mode share. While the region s population and household composition remains largely the same as it did 15 years ago, there are some noticeable trends, such as decreasing shares of children and increased shares of older adults (over 65). Meanwhile, even though most trips are in still in personal vehicles, the share of trips by car has been declining steadily since the 1999 survey. Most trip lengths are the same as they have been in past, and commute characteristics are mostly the same as well, with a slight uptick in distance covered by drivers. The survey data provides important insight into people s travel behaviors as well as their attitudes. We welcome the interested reader to learn more from the survey by working directly with results. The final dataset is available at: http://www.psrc.org/data/transportation/travel-surveys/- household. Here, one can download the data and read a number of associated documentation and technical reports to help process and understand the data. As analysis continues within PSRC, this location will be updated with the latest findings and reports. For more information about this report and PSRC s travel survey in general, please contact Neil Kilgren: NKilgren@psrc.org, 206-971-3602, or Brice Nichols: BNichols@psrc.org, 206-464-1663. 19